"A Thelemic Utopia"
-
@Veronica said
"All people share one thing,"
I was not disagreeing with the fact that we are all here on planet earth. This is another example of what I spoke of on another thread; replying to something not said. ( the point was concerning the ability to separate opinion from fact)
-
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"The 'fact', though, is only true in certain very limited conditions."
Classic!
This whole post of yours is a great example of this problem. It is a clear demonstration of the classic "Nit-Pick" reply that liberals resort to when getting uncomfortably close to a "fact". Even a generic one introduced for the sake of clarity alone is too close for comfort.
You see, the qualifier "at sea level" is sufficient for reasonable folks to establish the "limited conditions".
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"EVERYTHING, including unassailable truths like gravity or at what state liquids turn into gas, are really matters of perspective."
No. The perspective is implied by stating gravity "at the surface of earth". But for those who want to nit-pick there are plenty of side door exits to be fabricated at will.
-
Please explain the difference between "nit-picking" and "applying ruthless and immense scholarly ability toward a single question."
That, sir, is the very job definition of a Ph.D.
I know how to defend against one.
Do you know how to convince three?
You create your work and present it for their scrutiny.
-
In response to Labyrinthus, because you addressed a question to me and I didn't want to ignore you, I found all of Froclown's post (the one immediately before mine) to be in the vein of "All Liberals X", but specifically the entirety of paragraph 4 which begins with "That is why liberalism shows as Nietzsche...". You'll notice the common usage of the pronoun "They" followed by some remark that lumps all "Liberals" (not well defined who fits this label - as pointed out by Takamba) into a category that Froclown desires.
The point of my post is to state that I've used the "Liberal" label when talking about myself and I'm doing what Froclown says "liberals" don't do - making a solid judgment about his post and how False it is.
Now to follow that up, in the case of your posts recently, you've been talking about "nit-picking" replies, such as the examples that AvshalomBinyamin gave. It seems to me that "nit-picking" is extremely scientific, and not paying attention to details is not. THAT is not a judgment on which is better, only that AvshalomBinyamin's additional information seems more scientific to me, and I like that approach...
It kind of feels like if you were in a classroom and the teacher said "America was discovered by Christopher Columbus"; you would A) expect the liberal child in the class to raise his hands and "nit-pick" over that "fact" B) tell that Child to shut-up.
-
@Tinman said
"You'll notice the common usage of the pronoun "They" followed by some remark that lumps all "Liberals"..."
Not necessarily. A generalization about "they" is usually debatable to some degree. To say "all" is usually indefensible... which is why many will rephrase a generality as an exclusive 'all' (or 'none' or 'never' or 'always', etc.) which then is much easier to refute. And then the deep denial leftist can continue along his merry way in dismissive bliss of the uncomfortable truth.
One can make a general observation that Florida is warmer than Alaska. Now those who are threatened by such an observation might obfuscate by rephrasing the speaker as saying, "You said Florida is** always** warmer than Alaska but once the southern panhandle of Alaska was warmer than it was one record cold spring day in Florida" or some such thing. Those in denial now presume that they have made a relevant refutation. But the reality is that no meaningful reply was made concerning the actual claim.
-
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"Lab - Of course you don't see the irony of taking umbrage if someone includes you in their general statement, after you included a vague swath of humanity in yours.
Some vague subset of all people, specifically including you, Labyrinthus, can't take what they dish out."
Av, please look up the word umbrage. You have used that word incorrectly regarding comments of mine before. Simply disagreeing with someone or pointing out an error does not imply umbrage. When someone says "ALL people do such n such" and I say "No, they don't, I don't" -- that is NOT umbrage.
-
@Labyrinthus said
"
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"Lab - Of course you don't see the irony of taking umbrage if someone includes you in their general statement, after you included a vague swath of humanity in yours.Some vague subset of all people, specifically including you, Labyrinthus, can't take what they dish out."
Av, please look up the word umbrage. You have used that word incorrectly regarding comments of mine before. Simply disagreeing with someone or pointing out an error does not imply umbrage. When someone says "ALL people do such n such" and I say "No, they don't, I don't" -- that is NOT umbrage."
ahem
to paraphrase.... so the lame may hear and the dumb may walk on....
"Of course you don't see the irony of you taking offense/resenting if someone includes you in their general statement, after you have so repeatedly been doing that all along in your lack of intelligent but highly opinionated arguments."
Sounds like someone needs a nap maybe?
-
"Main Entry: um·brage
Pronunciation: \ˈəm-brij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin umbraticum, neuter of umbraticus of shade, from umbratus, past participle of umbrare to shade, from umbra shade, shadow; akin to Lithuanian unksmė shadow
Date: 15th century
1 : shade, shadow
2 : shady branches : foliage
3 a : an indistinct indication : vague suggestion : hint b : a reason for doubt : suspicion
4 : a feeling of pique or resentment at some often fancied slight or insult <took umbrage at the speaker's remarks>
"What's wrong with umbrage?
I'm sorry you don't like the 4th definition.
All terms are relative. All evasion is possible. All madness is conceivable.
But to whom will you turn for confirmation of your Reality? And what are the consequences if you don't?
-
All I can conclude so far about this Utopia is that either Labrynthus won't be in it, or only Labrynthus will be in it. There shall or shall not be liberals in it - for I do not know exactly what a liberal is except that Labrynthus and a few others throw the word around like it in itself is a stinging device. One may as well call another person a "Jew," "Nigger," or "Monster" according to this usage - but I'm sure I know who and what a Jew is and I've never met a monster I didn't enjoy. The phrasing of the ignorant though, even if I may not always know where it comes from, I am usually right when I say I know why it is used. So allow us to each to seek our own orbits by dispensing with this pain once-and-for-all by declaring Labrynthus the winner of the penis match and Froclown and anyone else who wants can declare themselves winners of the soccer game - because I think someone once said we are all supposed to be winners or something silly like that.
-
NO, what they actually said was that we are all supposed to be whiners... but that just seems so tough and I don't wanna
-
"So allow us to each to seek our own orbits by dispensing with this pain once-and-for-all by declaring Labrynthus the winner of the penis match and Froclown and anyone else who wants can declare themselves winners of the soccer game - because I think someone once said we are all supposed to be winners or something silly like that."
if I would have known it was a penis match I would have brought a strap on......
Seriously, thank you for this discussion, and I hope you liked Momma Wolf's lilttle song...
I do have a favorite dream.after little league ball the players have to line up and meet the opposing team, shaking hands with each, and saying good game...
when you have a bunch of children doing this, it sounds remarkibly like a bunch of bees humming....
"good game, good game, good game...."
they say it builds character,
I say the kids say it so they can get over it and get on to the after game party.. -
lol...
Good game!
Seriously.
-
@Froclown said
"Right, so even the slave class who are unable to seek out the ordeals and mastery of their own WILL, are still acting according to their natural orbit and function by serving, and the difference between old and new aeon slavery is that the new aeon masters work to provide labor and opportunity to as close an approximation of the right and proper function of the slave, as anyone can ascertain for anyone else. "
Indeed.
Rather enlightened words for a native of Illinois.
Most fail to realize that the slave is always enslaved of his own Will. One needs a certain kind of stupidity to choose a life of addiction, manual labor, poverty, etc. over a life of opulence. And this opulence need not be merely internal.
-
"The consequence of the «do your own thing» democracy is the intoxication of the greater part of the population which is not capable of discriminating for itself, which, when not guided by a power and an ideal, all too easily loses sense of its own identity." (Julius Evola)
Now, what could be more necessary knowing and doing your TRUE WILL, than a sense of your own identity, And seeing as the sense of one's own identity is discerned by the measure of a powerful leader who represents and reveals an Ideal, (Culture and tradition) by which one finds ones place in a wider existence. It would seem that a Thelemic society must have a clear tradition, a culture of ideals and it must have leaders who exemplify those ideals, and thus command the respect and loyalty.
-
"Most fail to realize that the slave is always enslaved of his own Will. "
Could you please explain?
Personally, I would say that the slave is always enslaved by his own blindness to his True Will, but that True Will itself is necessarily always liberating, by definition.
I am against those who would perpetuate blindness for their own gain, which has always been my perspective on Froclown's argument. Not once in almost two years have I been able by hook or by crook to get him to describe how we change from the status quo to what he envisions.
And if what he envisions is so different from what currently exists, then why? What change does he suggest bringing? Mostly from what I can tell, he suggests a reorganization of society into castes. He used to refer constantly to the fantasy novel series Gor.
It is the reorganization of society into castes that I constantly question him about. According to what standard of reorganization...? Rich and poor? It already exists, and is ever as it was.
If you can get some sort of standard for the reorganization of the American democracy into castes from him, I'd like to inspect it very, very closely...
Until then, I will continue to disagree with him about his understanding of slaves and kings (a concept he frequently uses interchangeably with the term "masters," along with his talk of social revolution).
Your thoughts?
-
The traditional castes are
The Initiated Kings
The Pious Preists
The Honorable Warriors
The Shrewd Merchants
The Vulgar Peasant.The peasants are like Nietzsche's last man, they have no higher ambitions beyond their immediate survival needs, they are ruled by base desires and tend to butt heads. Communism in it's final stage is the rule of peasants. They have no link to a higher purpose or authority, just a gray basic equality.
The Merchants have profit in mind and thus they are ruled by market forces. They organize companies and such, But they have no greater purpose than profit. This is commercial capitalism at it's best.
The warriors are like the kinghts the police officers they believe in justice and laws of honor which they enforce and bring order to society. When the warriors are strong the shrewdness of the merchant class is kept in check and the peasants are kept peaceful, to a degree, by use of force.
The Priests, these teach and impose moral traditions, it is from these morals than the Warriors distill their codes of honor. The Priests, are keepers and transmitters of the traditional customs, manors, ways of the people. Thus the peasants informed by the priests, are instilled organized into a community, where head butting is replaced by sharing and division of labor. So that co-operation can fulfill the people with purpose and a link to something larger than themselves.
The initiated Kings, then are both the highest expression of the Traditional values and customs, they are like the arch-priests. But the Kings do not merely passively keep the traditions, the King is a part of tradition, the priests transmit the ways of the God's the King is one of the God's he is an expression of Tradition.
The Priest is to Magister Templi as the King is to Magus.
cordeliaforlear.blogspot.com/2009/04/regression-of-castes-by-julius-evola.html
My interest in expressing relations to Gor, is that Gor if you take out the sorta BDSM aspects and look at the structure of the caste system, it is very much like the model above.
Gor has
White caste Preists - Creators of traditions who talk directly to the "Gods" the Sardar
Blue Caste Scribes - keepers of records and educators of children and judges.
Green Caste Doctors - keep people immortal.
Yellow caste builders - Create cities and roads
Red Caste warriors - Protect the city and it's honor.Merchants then are a peasant class, or low class. The merchant is never respected the same as a warrior, or doctor or scribe, no matter how rich he is, nor how penniless the higher caste might be.
You immediately jump to the economic class system we have now as proof we already have a caste system. This economic based system is a result of money taking a higher value than honor, health piety, tradition, etc. That is a clear indication than Modern American society is under a regression of the Caste system where the Merchant class values of shrewdness and profit, are considered the highest or most important. See the Ferengi of Star Trek.
It is in the interest of the merchant class to dismantle the caste system, to teach equality, and to wipe out all tradition and higher values and common norms, etc which create cultural identity. It is much easier to sell things to people when they lack hight values and believe they can buy identity and purpose from the store. Also when they have no higher values, they have nothing to pre-occupy them thus they will buy more pass time activities. They also have less sense of personal integrity as part of the community and thus will buy products which may be of questionable origin or may have harmful side effects to others. Get rid of Honor and the police force are easily bribed, or the congress lobbied.
Creating a casteless society of pariahs, is good business for the merchant class. The merchants need to be kept in check by warriors, warriors need to be guided by priests, priests need to be in communication with an initiated King, at least from time to time.
-
So... are you suggesting a mythical framework to lay over the global "chessboard" where Queens, Popes, Uncle Sams, Henry Fords, and Apples are the grand personas in play - the members of the castes? Because I'm not sure if I'm really sold yet, but the concept does help me think differently in terms of the "grand game," so to speak. I like the interdependence. I like the sort of Star Wars/Dune angle... lol.. It kind of gives the chess pieces their rules.
Eh.. Maybe I'm finally hearing you. Kinda sounds kind of like a "kingdom not of this world."
Careful preaching that one...
-
What I suggest is that the major change is in the Kings.
That is the Traditional Kings were initiates into the mysteries, that is into the tradition via the formula of the Father figure who dies and is reborn. The values of this formula taught by the priests, and upheld by the warriors, in fact according to Max Webber, even the economic class is the result of protestant values.What Thelema shows is that there will be a new type of King, that is initiated by the formula of the Child. The new priests are the officers of the mass, that convey the values, links to nature and tradition without reliance on superstitions, and no notion of a vicarious or mediated relationship between the aspirant and deity or the mysteries etc. The peasant is encouraged to see his role as an expression of his WILL and not a result of sin or unworthiness, as if his life is punishment for sins of his fathers. The peasant is respected and aided in doing his WILL as much as any other. The warriors or knights that enforce the law of Thelema are set more to help each individual grow and find a place to fit into society and vary rarely set on punishing anyone's "wrong doing". The Merchant class under the law are not seeking profit for profit sake, they perfect their art of getting the right product to the right consumer, they work not out of greed, but because it is their WILL to buy and sell, to the end that he is honored by honoring the needs of his brothers, to the end that the community as a whole is improved and manifests the glory of order, and its King to the world, to the accomplishment of the great work. The masses (Slaves) or men of earth or whatever, are those who do the chores and the necessary tasks of the community, like growing food, cooking, cleaning, plumbing, etc. They each like the merchant may say WILL, to themselves as an encouragement and to always remember that they work according to their own WILL, to manifest the glory of the order, for the good of their brothers, and towards the accomplishment of the Great work.
Thus the use of WILL, in place of prayer, is more effective it gets people working together out of positive love of each other, rather than negative fear of God and desire to do penance for sin. The Gnostic mass in place of the Catholic mass, helps to affirm brotherhood, link to a lineage of esoteric thinkers, the relation between the sexes and the sun and moon, which creates a sense of being part of nature, not opposed to it. Other rituals like Resh and celebrations of the saints and seasons also aid this. Not to mention the initiation rituals. Where I would think P.I. marks the cross over into the higher castes. If we are talking OTO. and 5=6 grade in the A.'.A.'. (Though A.'.A.'. seems more set on individual aspirations to Kingship, not a specific social order)
Basically it is the rituals that transform mere individuals into persons.
-
Might an idea of true-based-societal roles exist without necessarily taking a specific kind of form? Mightn't the society that the people contribute towards resemble any number of models at any given place, time and culture? Couldn't this even function in a place with fairly flat distribution of wealth and quality of life? So the biggest mistake would be for a person to misunderstand their own role. For example, they might be a warrior with an idealist constitution, ready to serve society. But they might imagine themselves to be a king, and try to impose there own mistaken vision of form - when that's really a king's job.
-
Man, I'm a romantic at heart too. There's a lot in what you say that makes sense, but I'll reveal my heart to you. There's this:
"According to time and circumstances, the society of sages communicated unto the exterior societies their symbolic hieroglyphs, in order to attract man to the great truths of their Sanctuary.
But all exterior societies subsist only by virtue of this interior one. As soon as external societies wish to transform a temple of wisdom into a political edifice, the interior society retires and leaves only the letter without the spirit. It is thus that secret external societies of wisdom were nothing but hieroglyphic screens, the truth remaining inviolable in the Sanctuary so that she might never be profaned.
In this interior society man finds wisdom and with her All--- not the wisdom of this world, which is but scientific knowledge, which revolves round the outside but never touches the centre (in which is contained all strength), but true wisdom, understanding and knowledge, reflections of the supreme illumination. -An Account of A∴ A∴ sub figurâ XXXIII *"
At some point, there comes a necessary link between the initiatory society and the power of the kings. Until someone can find a way to bridge the gap between the man who wrote the above words and the man everybody thinks came to create some form of ultimate political power, I'm gonna argue against it. I don't know what else to do. In this book, he's described too clearly the substance of my own heart, if not the present purity or refinement.
So, until then, I'm gonna put in Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail, and I'm going to laugh at us one more time, doing all of this again.
"King Arthur: I am your king.
Peasant Woman: Well, I didn't vote for you.
King Arthur: You don't vote for kings.
Peasant Woman: Well, how'd you become king, then?
[Angelic music plays... ]
King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Dennis the Peasant: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Arthur: Be quiet!
Dennis the Peasant: You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you! Oh but if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away.
Arthur: [grabs Dennis] Shut up! Will you shut up?!
Dennis: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Arthur: [shakes Dennis] Shut up!
Dennis: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!
Arthur: Bloody Peasant!"And then I'm going to put in Life of Brian and maybe cry a little bit. But for sure laugh.
Peace.